California Assembly approves right-to-die legislation

1 Comment

This is from The Los Angeles Times.

We are murdering babies and calling it choice, so we will allow the murder of the terminally ill and it will be called compassion.

Soon we will be murdering the elderly, disabled, the mentally ill and like Adolph Hitler we will call it improving society.

I have a very aggressive form of Leukemia and I oppose this madness.

“First They Came for the Jews”
By Pastor Niemoller

 "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The state Assembly on Wednesday approved a measure that would allow California physicians to prescribe life-ending drugs to terminally ill patients, sending the proposal to the Senate, which had previously approved a similar bill.

Modeled on a law in Oregon, the measure by Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) sparked an emotional debate, with many Republicans saying that it is immoral to assist in a suicide, but with supporters arguing that terminally ill Californians should have a choice to die peacefully without pain.

“I am committed to this issue of people being able to die on their own terms,” said Eggman, a university professor with expertise in end-of-life care.

The legislation passed by a vote of 42-33 after Assembly members offered passionate, often deeply personal, arguments both in favor and against the bill.

Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown (D-Rialto) told lawmakers about her son, who was near death. Doctors urged her to let him go. Nineteen days later, he came off life support. He survived, and is now a husband and father.

“Doctors don’t know everything,” Brown said.

Assemblywoman Marie Waldron (R-Escondido) during the debate told members that “suicide should not be the first option where hospice and palliative care have not been tried.”

Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D-Hayward), however, said the bill would give Californians choices about the kind, and quality, of life they want to have.

“A life lived in pain is not bearable for some people,” he said.

Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) argued the bill would allow those suffering from terminal illness to end their suffering in a peaceful and dignified manner.

Alejo’s voice choked with emotion as he talked about his father, who is in pain suffering from terminal bone cancer, and how his father wanted to make his own decisions about the end of his life.

“Respect his choices,” Alejo said.

The proposal gained momentum after Californian Brittany Maynard moved to Oregon last year so she could end her life with drugs to avoid suffering and the debilitating effects of brain cancer. In a videotaped appeal before her death, Maynard urged California lawmakers to pass the legislation.

However, a similar bill bogged down in an Assembly panel and the proposal had to be revived in a separate bill as part of a special session called by Gov. Jerry Brown on healthcare.

Maynard’s husband and mother were joined on Wednesday by a dozen activists who watched the vote from the Assembly gallery. There were cheers, tears and hugs when the vote was cast.

Dan Diaz, Maynard’s husband, was emotional in his response.

“There is a sense of pride in the Legislature,” Diaz said. “Today it reaffirmed the reason Brittany spoke to begin with. The Legislature will no longer abandon the terminally ill where hospice and palliative care are no longer an option. They can have a gentle passing. ”
Eggman recently amended her bill, AB X2-15, to sunset in 10 years, at which time lawmakers could review how the law worked and decide whether to grant an extension.

The End of Life Option Act would require patients to submit two oral requests, a minimum of 15 days apart, and a written request, and for the attending physician to personally receive all three requests.

The written request would be signed in front of two witnesses who must attest that the patient is of sound mind and not under duress.

Opponents of the bill, including the Catholic Church and advocates for the disabled, voiced concern that the legislation might result in those with disabilities being coerced to end their life prematurely.

It is unclear whether the bill will be signed by Brown, a former Jesuit seminary student.




Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

Leave a comment

This is from TopYaps.

More ideological and fanatical, many believed that Hitler had created a fantasy world of his own and lived not too close to reality. This is probably the reason why he underestimated the zeal of the Russians, the Americans and the British, and lost many battles during the WW2. The failed Operation Barbarossa that was initiated in 1941 ultimately became the cause of heavy loss of manpower to the German army, and its final defeat.  For more on the top 10 reasons why Hitler lost World War II, read below.

10. The policy of never to retreat:

Hitler as we all know lived in his fantasy world more than he did in reality, and this was the reason why he believed that determination of his soldiers would be honored in the battlefield, without giving much heed to the reality. His soldiers were only commanded to move forward, but never retreat. When he denied Frederich Paulus the permission to retreat, it resulted in the total loss of the of 6th Panzer Army.

Fighting war on two fronts

9. Hitler dismissed all the right technologies:

Hitler could have won the war against Soviet Union if he would have acknowledged the right technology. But, he gave up many of the most useful innovations of that time including the cancellation of the first ever assault rifle, which was perfect for the Russian vast lands. Also, Me-262 fighter jets, the first jet powered aircraft was discarded by him. Since the early deigns of the fighter jet were that of an interceptor, and Hitler never wanted interceptors the project was smacked out.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

8. US joining the World War II in 1941:

During 1941, Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor marking America’s entry in the World War II. As a promise to Japan, Hitler also announced war on America, but just the way it underestimated the British and also the Russians, it thought that reeling under the loss of war, America was incapable of defeating Germany. And what happened ahead proved him wrong.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

7. Hitler became Commander-in-Chief, neglecting all advice:

By the time Hitler sensed the total failure of Operation Barossa, he had inculcated a lack of trust for all his generals and their abilities. Hitler lost as his mistrust grew so grave that instead of devising new strategies to gain back the defeat, he appointed himself as the Commander-in-Chief of the army. He thought he could undo their failures and plan better. Advice from the many wise Generals of Germany could have saved the German army.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

6. Never paid heed to his Generals:

Although Generals are meant to be listened to and taken advice from, but Hitler wouldn’t listen to them. Initially he did show trust in them and won many battles, strategized by them. For example, Field Marshall Rundstedt had strategized the entire battle against France, which they eventually won. But, later on he wouldn’t listen to them seriously.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

5. Ill prepared for the Russian winters:

The Germans and Hitler had underestimated the Russian Winters. The army was ill equipped for the winter. There was sharp scarcity of winter clothes, food and medical care. Of course maximum causalities were attributed to the war of Stalingrad, but other than that many had given in to the harsh weather conditions. By the end, the army had lost most of its young soldiers to the grip of the prolonged winter.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

4. Battle of Stalingrad:

One of the bloodiest wars ever fought in the history of warfare, the Battle of Stalingrad became the main decider of Germany’s position in World War II. Hitler lost the war as the heavy loss of manpower, standing somewhere around two million, was something from which Germany wasn’t able to fully recover and awaited further defeat. In fact, before the war of Stalingrad, Hitler’s army was supposed to conquer the Caucasus oil fields, which would have given them substantial power, but they decided to invade the nearby Stalingrad, thus inviting defeat.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

3. Poor Choice of allies:

Forming allies on the basis of ideology instead of shared common interests also lead to the major defeat of Germany. Whereas it should have allied with Japan for the ease of attack on Soviet Union, it allied with Italy, Hungary and Rumania, countries that were called the less powerful Axis; their motive was to conquer greater territory in the wake of war.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

2. The war was started almost six weeks late:

Although Hitler was well aware about the harsh winter of Russia, its alliance with Italy had delayed its invasion of the Soviet Union by almost six weeks. Italy’s failed invasions to North Africa, Yugoslavia, and Greece demanded the intervention of Germany, and so Operation Barossa was delayed. By the times the Germans were on the verge of invading Russia, the autumn rains had already set in.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II

1. Fighting war on two fronts:

The primary target of Hitler had always been Russia, but in the middle of this it gave Britain undue importance and fought the battle of England, only to bring it to its knees and to make it accept the supremacy of Germany. But, instead what happened was that Germany lost that battle, and at the same time had also invaded into Russia. Hitler lost as he decided to deal with Britain later, which was a mistake.

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitler Lost World War II



Should Obama Be Able to Override Judges? Voters Have a Surprising Answer You Definitely Didn’t Learn in Government Class

1 Comment

This is from The Blaze.

This is the mentality that gave us tyrants like Adolph Hitler, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein.

This mentality also empowered murdering scum like Charles Manson and Jim Jones.


Basic U.S. government classes and “Schoolhouse Rock” may stress the importance of checks and balances, but for a huge chunk of Americans, checks and balances don’t mean much.

For those Americans, it’s imperative that President Barack Obama be able to override the other branches of government.

More than one-quarter of likely U.S. voters think President Obama should ignore federal court rulings “if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country,” according to Rasmussen Reports polling data released Friday.

An even bigger segment of Americans polled — 31 percent — said they believe Obama should take action overriding Congress on “important” issues and that it’s more important that American government operate “efficiently” than it is to preserve America’s checks and balances.

There was a distinct partisan split among the 800 likely voters polled.

On the issue of Obama ignoring court orders, 81 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of unaffiliated voters said the president should not be able to disregard inconvenient court cases, but among Democrats, 43 percent said Obama should be able to brush aside judges’ decisions that don’t go his way.

The polling comes as several of Obama’s hallmark achievements — including a federal judge blocking Obama’s executive immigration action that would halt millions of deportations and a pending Supreme Court case against Obamacare — are coming under judicial scrutiny.

Other findings: Women, young voters and black voters were more likely to say that Obama should be able to ignore court decisions, while voters over 40 and men were more likely to disagree.

See the full poll results here and read the questions asked in the poll here.

Duggar Daughter Discombobulates Darwinists With Evolution Holocaust Connection

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Nothing Discombobulates liberals like the facts.

I say Bravo to Jenna Duggar for presenting the facts and sticking to her guns inspite the liberal attacks.


Jessa Duggar wrote the following in an Instagram post about her walk through the Holocaust Museum:

“[It was] very sobering. Millions of innocents denied the most basic and fundamental of all rights–their right to life. One human destroying the life of another deemed ‘less than human.’ Racism, stemming from the evolutionary idea that man came from something less than human; that some people groups are ‘more evolved’ and others ‘less evolved.’ A denying that our Creator–GOD–made us human from the beginning, all of ONE BLOOD and ONE RACE, descendants of Adam. The belief that some human beings are ‘not fit to live.’”

She went on to compare the Nazi death camps to abortion in the United States.

As usual, the haters came out in force. The following passes for rational discourse:

Duggar Evolution_01

Like the theory of nothing to something, molecules to man evolution, it’s impossible.

Duggar Evolution_02

Darwin’s first work, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, first published in 1859, was the weapon that secularists needed to advance a rival comprehensive worldview based on non-Christian presuppositions. Darwinian evolution was seen as a way out of a world governed by a Creator who demanded ethical absolutes.

German scholar Ernst Haeckel pushed the implications of Darwin’s theories to comprehensive limits. He believed that moral law was subject to biology. “Thousands, indeed millions of cells are sacrificed in order for a species to survive.”[1]

If this is true of biology, then it is equally true for society. “Haeckel’s use of Darwin’s theories was decisive in the intellectual history of his time. It united trends already developing in Germany of racism, imperialism, romanticism, nationalism, and anti-semitism.”[2]


In 1906, at the age of seventy-two, he founded the Monist League. To the Monist, man was one with nature and the animals. Man was no special creation as the “image of God.” He had no soul, only a superior degree of development. The Monist League “united eugenicists, biologists, theologians, literary figures, politicians and sociologists.”[3]


The Darwinian worldview as expressed by Haeckel’s Monist League was comprehensive in interpreting all of life in terms of the social implications of evolution. The effects on Germany, as all of history attests, was disastrous. “Otto Ammon, a leading racial anthropologist, wrote that the laws of nature were the laws of society. ‘Bravery, cunning and competition are virtues . . . Darwin must become the new religion of Germany . . . the racial struggle is necessary for mankind.’”[4]

Karl Marx also found in Darwin “the natural history foundation” for his views. Hegel’s philosophy of “dialectical materialism” where conflicting views were synthesized into a third, more advanced stage of development, was now supported by Darwin’s biology and inherent historical implications that “society, like nature, improved over time.”[5]

Darwin had a similar impact on America, although it did not take the form of Nazism or Marxist Communism. The American industrialist Andrew Carnegie embraced the social implications of Darwin’s theories and applied them to the world of business. “That light came in as a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I found the truth of evolution.”[6] John D. Rockefeller, using Darwinian logic, believed that “The growth of a large business is merely the survival of the fittest.”[7]

Robby Kossmann, a German zoologist who later became a medical professor, expresses a proto-Nazi view in his 1880 essay, “The Importance of the Life of an Individual in the Darwinian World View”:


[T]he Darwinian world view must look upon the present sentimental conception of the value of the life of a human individual as an overestimate completely hindering the progress of humanity. The human state also, like every animal community of individuals, must reach an even higher level of perfection, if the possibility exists in it, through the destruction of the less well-endowed individual, for the more excellently endowed to win the space for the expansion of its progeny. . . . The state only has an interest in preserving the more excellent life at the expense of the less excellent.[8]


There is no doubt that Hitler imbibed the social implications of Darwinism; it had a long history in Germany as Richard Weikart shows in his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler. Some will say that Hitler and others “hijacked” Darwinism since there is nothing inherent in evolution that logically leads to anti-Semitism.

Certainly Darwin was no anti-Semite, and I suspect that he was no Marxist either, and yet it was Karl Marx who wrote the following to Friedrich Engels: “Although developed in a course English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view.”[9] As history attests, worldwide Marxism has a history even more savage than Nazism as the Black Book of Communism demonstrates, and there is no doubt that atheism and evolution were its driving forces.[10]

In the final analysis, whether evolution had been hijacked or not is hardly the issue. Evolution is a malleable worldview that can be shaped to support any moral sentiment, good, bad, or indifferent because there is no moral governor, or as the Declaration of Independence put it, “the Supreme Judge of the world,” that stands outside the matter-only cosmos. There is no moral “ought” in evolution. Modern-day evolutionists swear to it.



  1. Quoted in James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1985), 265. []
  2. Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, 265. []
  3. Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, 266. Haeckel falsified the illustrations that accompanied a technical article he published in 1868. See Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto, Canada: TFE Publishing, 1987), 274–281. []
  4. Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, 265. []
  5. Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, 273. []
  6. Quoted in John W. Whitehead, The End of Man (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1986), 53. []
  7. Quoted Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, 271. []
  8. Quoted in Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 2. []
  9. Marx to Engels (December 19, 1860) in Marx-Engels Werke (Berlin, 1959), 30:131. Quoted in Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, 4. []
  10. Daniel Peris, Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998). []








Customer finds Nazi symbol on her chicken sandwich

Leave a comment

This is from News Channel 12 ABC WCTI.

What is wrong with someone who does something like this?

Why is it some many of the younger generation looks up to the Nazi’s?

My oldest took a 20 something to task over saying  he admired Adolph Hitler she said Hitler had over six million people murdered.

She asked “Are you special kind of stupid?”.I wonder where she got that?

He looked at her, then looked at me I think he noticed my Glock and walked away.


Customer finds Nazi symbol on her chicken sandwich

MOREHEAD CITY, CARTERET COUNTY A Carteret County mother makes a shocking discovery when she goes to eat her chicken sandwich from a McDonald’s drive-thru in Morehead City. That customer, Charleigh Matice, said when she went to put mayonnaise on her bun she found a swastika etched in butter on it.


Matice said she couldn’t believe someone could possibly do that in this day and time.

“Is this a joke? Does somebody really think they’re funny?,” Matice said.

This anti-Semitic symbol was used by the Nazi party in Germany during the Holocaust. Her grandfather had fought in World War II.  She said the swastika really offended her.

“Many people died because of that symbol and it’s not something that should be taken lightly. It’s not something that should be thrown around,” Matice said.

She said when she went inside the restaurant employees offered to replace it.

“I really didn’t have an appetite at that point so I said I rather have my money back,” Matice said.

However, Matice said even with the money she didn’t feel satisfied. She wants the incident addressed at a larger scale.

“Maybe it needs to be part of training, or maybe brought up more often so that people know that this is not okay,” Matice said.

We contacted McDonald’s corporate office about the incident. They emailed us a statement from the owner of that McDonald’s in Morehead City.

“We are very sorry for the service that our customers received, and to be clear we have terminated the employee who was involved. We do not tolerate that kind of behavior at McDonald’s, and it’s not what we stand for personally as owners. It is about providing the best level of service and care to our customers, and anything less than that is unacceptable to us.”  – Dulcy Purcell, local McDonald’s Owner/Operator in Morehead City, NC

Matice said she’s not upset with McDonald’s anymore.

“I’m a loyal customer and that’s why I don’t want people like that representing them,” Matice said.

She said she plans on eating there again.


6 Famous People Who Think You Should Own Guns – and 6 Who Think You Shouldn’t

1 Comment

This is from The Right To Bear Arms.

Missing from the list is Eric Holder,Micheal Bloomberg and John Walsh.

gun supporters

UN to Set Up a U.S.-based Disarmament Specialist

Leave a comment

This is from The New American.

A Tyrant once said, “To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens.” Adolph Hitler.

A more recent tyrants said,“We Must Brainwash People Against Guns” Eric Holder.

I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”Then Senator Barack  Hussein Obama.

Now we are looking at this crap coming down the pike.

It’s no secret that President Obama and the would-be global governors at the United Nations are anxious to disarm the American people. Now they’re looking to hire some help in getting it done.

From the UN’s Programme of Action and Arms Trade Treaty, to his own executive orders, Obama is pursuing every available avenue toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment and the God-given right to keep and bear arms that it protects.

Over the next few weeks, though, the UN is looking to add personnel to its gun grabbing gestapo. In a job advertisement open until July 26, the UN is looking for a “Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer.”

What will this bureaucrat’s bailiwick be? Here’s a summary of the job description as posted by the UN:

Act as a Focal Point for DDR [Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration] components for 2-3 missions, responsible for planning, support to implementation and evaluation;

Advise, develop and review (as appropriate) initial DDR functional strategy and concept of operations for further development into a full programme by the DDR component and the National DDR Commission;

Provide Headquarters support in planning the civilian and military logistics support for DDR;

Continually review DDR programme strategy and implementation through relevant documents, reports and code cables;

Conduct field missions to assess implementation of established DDR programmes;

Identify potential problems and issues to be addressed and suggest remedies to DDR units in the field; and

Liaise with others (UN, regional organizations [sic] and Member States) providing DDR training.

As if the list of tasks assigned to the disarmament specialist isn’t enough to fire up patriots who own firearms and refuse to have them seized by the UN or the Obama administration, the UN wants to base this office in New York City!

It is more than a little incompatible that a country that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that has such disdain and disregard for those rights that it is opening a disarmament office in that country.

Lest anyone think that there’s nothing to fear from this agent of disarmament, consider the definitions of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration provided by the UN on an information page linked to the job opening announcement:

Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.

Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and groups, including a phase of “reinsertion” which provides short-term assistance to ex-combatants.

Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income. It is a political, social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level.

The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.

Notably, the UN will require the DDR specialist to help disarm ex-combatants. Is this mission not an eery echo of recent efforts in the United States to keep veterans from owning firearms? Perhaps, unbeknownst to the American people, President Obama has already been using his infamous “pen” and “phone” to carry out the disarmament of veterans in furtherance of some higher-level UN strategy.

Could it be also that the rapid militarization of local law enforcement in the United States could be another tactic in the piecemeal, surreptitious deployment of “troops” capable of carrying out a forcible forfeiture of firearms?

As reported by the National Rifle Association’s Ginny Simone, there are those on the inside who have raised the warning voice.

Simone reports that in 2012, Ambassador Faith Whittlesey, a U.S. delegate to the UN Small Arms Conference, revealed that the UN’s ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans in the name of global peace and an end to armed violence.

“In New York, right here on our own shores, we’ve got a Trojan horse. They won’t accept U.S. firearms policy,” Whittlesey said. “They want to take the decision away from the U.S. electorate and undermine our Constitution.”

Regardless of the reason, Americans must adamantly refuse to allow the UN to establish an office of disarmament on our own shores. We must demonstrate our ancestors’ zeal for liberty, particularly regarding the fundamental right to oppose tyranny by force of arms.

If we do not, we may soon be subject to the full expression of the authority of the U.S.-based DDR specialist and be left defenseless in the fight against absolutism.


Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues.  Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at



Michelle Obama To High-School Grads: Monitor Your Parents For Thoughtcrime

1 Comment

This from The Daily Caller.

Moochelle is going the route of the Nazis getting children to report their parents.

Adolph Hitler and Henirich Himmler would be proud.



There can be no aspect of your daily life that’s removed from politics. Now you will be monitored by your own children for expressing unapproved opinions. You’d better watch what you say at the dinner table, Mom and Dad.

Pete Kasperowicz, The Blaze:

First lady Michelle Obama is encouraging students to monitor their older relatives, friends and co-workers for any racially insensitive comments they might make, and to challenge those comments whenever they’re made.

The first lady spoke on Friday to graduating high school students in Topeka, Kansas, and in remarks released over the weekend, Obama said students need to police family and friends because federal laws can only go so far in stopping racism.

“[O]ur laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but nothing in the Constitution says we have to eat together in the lunchroom, or live together in the same neighborhoods,” she said. “There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny.”

Oh, if only we could control what other people think and feel. But until that magic day arrives, all we can do is set people against each other based on race, under the guise of “fighting racism.”

I wonder if this extends toward hateful jokes or comments about white people? Or is that simply considered social justice? After all, those hillbillies have got it coming for possessing the same skin tone as other people who’ve said and done bad things.

Of course, this post is racist because the First Lady is black. If you don’t condemn me for disagreeing with her, you’re a racist too.


Read more:

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation — like PACs

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Examiner.

Let us look back through the sands of time to several periods that the media was controlled by tyrants and despots.

One was when Adolph Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels controlled the German Press.

The next ones were Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin in the old Soviet Union.

Then there was Fidel Castro in Cuba now his brother Raul controls the Cuban Press.

Now we have a new Despot wanting to control the Conservative Press his name Barach Hussein Obama.


Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media’s exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of theFederal Election Commission is vowing to fight.

“I think that there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the editorial decisions of conservative publishers,” warned Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman in an interview.

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.

Noting the success of sites like the Drudge Report, Goodman said that protecting conservative media, especially those on the internet, “matters to me because I see the future going to the democratization of media largely through the internet. They can compete with the big boys now, and I have seen storm clouds that the second you start to regulate them, there is at least the possibility or indeed proclivity for selective enforcement, so we need to keep the media free and the internet free.”

All media has long benefited from an exemption from FEC rules, thereby allowing outlets to pick favorites in elections and promote them without any limits or disclosure requirements like political action committees.

But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity‘s radio show and Citizens United’s movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.

Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission‘s “fairness doctrine” to cut of conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.

“The picking and choosing has started to occur,” said Goodman. “There are some in this building that think we can actually regulate” media, added Goodman, a Republican whose chairmanship lasts through December. And if that occurs, he said, “then I am concerned about disparate treatment of conservative media.”

He added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted

Hitler: ‘No Trannies? Of Course! THAT’S Why I Lost the War!’

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

This story almost caused me to choke to death on my Gatorade. 



The following is satire

by Adolf Hitler


Dear America,

After seven decades of wondering, agonizing, spending sleepless nights tossing and turning in my flaming bed in Hell over why I lost the war, I now know why.  It was right under my cropped–moustached nose the entire time.   How could I not have seen it all those years ago?

On March 13th your Führer, Barack Obama, had a federal commission study and decide that there was “no compelling medical reason” to exclude “trannies” (transsexuals; men with breasts who fancy themselves as women, or women with penises who fancy themselves men, or anyone with gender identity issues) from your military.

We determined not only that there is no compelling medical reason for the ban, but also that the ban itself is an expensive, damaging and unfair barrier to health care access for the approximately 15,450 transgender personnel who serve currently in the active, Guard and reserve components,” said your commission, led by Dr. Joycelyn Elders, your former Führer, Bill Klinton’s Surgeon General last Thursday.

Of all the reasons I thought I lost the war, the real reason never occurred to me until now.   Breaking international treaties; going to war without assured equipment and troops for the long haul; waging war on two fronts; going to war against America, with its endless military industrial capabilities; discounting all of my generals’ warnings and calls for caution, and loading trains that could carry soldiers to the fronts to instead carry Jews and countess others to their deaths…?   Nah!   None of those reasons was why I now know I lost the war.

The reason: Trannies!   If only I had allowed trannies into my military then you yanks would be reading this now in German (if reading it at all).  …Trannies!  How couldn’t I have guessed?!

I have admired over the last 20 years as you Americans have toyed with your military, the most formidable ever, the same force that defeated me and what I thought was my mightiest army on the planet, into a total social playground, outwardly more interested in reflecting your culture’s “evolving norms” than doing what any rational military force is meant to do: cultivate complete uniformity, selflessness, unshakable obedience to authority, belief in duty, undying love of country, develop physical endurance, death-defying bravery, unbreakable comradeship, loyalty, sacrifice, and ability to put all personal proclivities or behaviors aside in order to become part of a steel-hard mass of deadly defenders, having personal beliefs and lifestyles disappear in the face of indispensable codes of uniformed conduct.

Nevertheless, despite your best efforts to turn a great military from one that overran MY Europe and won nearly every battle since into some endless pool party at Larry Flynt’s mansion, yours is still the most imposing force in the world.  Amazing!   No other country is willing to take you on, not even me if I were alive today.  And the reason:  TRANNIES!

If I only had allowed trannies into the Wehrmacht I would have won!  I could have had it all –England, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, and who knows what else. Shemales could have saved me, damn it, if I had not been so prejudiced!

Just think about it:  I could have been in my East Prussian “Wolf’s Layer”, arguing with my generals about their pessimism and their dismal news from the Eastern front in the summer of 1943, and if only some tranny officer would have come up and said, “Uhh, exthooze me, Mr. Führer, but you know, like, hell-ooooo..?  We can push back these Russians with the troops we still have sitting in already allied counties.  Like, holla! …We can move our troops from Hungary, Romania and Lithuania to fight in the East.  Duh!” …And I would have listened!   …“Like, sir, Hitler, Fur-lord-whatever-guy, maybe we should forget about Italy and Greece?  Hell-ooooo?!  …And I would have listened!  Who else is more cautious than a tranny?!  Man, I was so dumb!

After France was subdued and I began planning to attack Russia, all I needed was a tranny colonel or general to rub my back and be like, “Oh, Hitler, ya’ big silly!  You can’t take on Russia and England and America at the same time.  Chill, baby, you big ol’ cuddly genocidal maniac, you!” …And I would have listened!  Who else can “see both sides of the same coin” better than trannies?

PERFECT_Drag_Officer_RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRWhat about my generals?  All it would have taken when we were 50 miles outside Stalingrad would have been some chick with a penis or a painted-up guy with fake hooters to tap General von Paulus on the shoulder and be like, “Umm, hell-ooooo, General, I’m sorry to be the ‘turd-in-the-tulips’ here, but I’ve heard Stalingrad is, like, pretty dangerouth… I got a bad feeling about thiththir!”  ….And von Paulus would have listened!  Who better to trust your army in than trannies with their documented disproportionate afflictions of psychological issues, including depression, bi-polar disorder, and substance abuse (“Bradley Manning” ring any bells?  Yeah, what a gem of fidelity and mental stability he was)?

And how would my legacy be now if I had had a horde of tranny SS officers around me in the 30s be all like, “Umm, Mr. Hitler, thir, maybe instead of persecuting the Jews you should, umm, like, let them help you develop weapons and other technologies.  You could take over the world, ya’ big ol’ pouty-puss, if you didn’t kill your country’s most productive, intelligent people, thir.”   …Yes, my legacy would have been much way better if only Himmler and Goering had been trannies.  Damn it, why couldn’t Himmler have just had a nice huge set of fake jugs?!  Why couldn’t Rommel have done that whole Silence-of-the-Lambs-Buffalo-Bill-dancing-naked-scene-thing? $@#&!

Trannies, man!  I’m telling you, America —trannies in the military are the key to success.  Your current Führer has fired so many of your top commanders (kind of like Stalin, without the execution part), has scrapped Bill Klinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, paved way for women (not just those that make your military’s “cut”) to serve in the front lines, extended federal benefits to partners of same-sex personnel serving, has made any religious head gear acceptable among supposedly uniformed soldiers (you do know what “uniformed” means, right?), and now has opened the way for trannies to serve in positions of extreme, sometimes life or death importance. If only I had followed Obama’s policies, I could have won.  $@#&!  What a revelation to have now, seven decades later, roasting in Hell.

Trannies, America! I’m telling ya’–you’re on to something big here, bigger than I ever could have guessed.  Too bad we murdered all the trannies we could in my time. $&*%!  I’m so sorry.  Of all my monstrous deeds, I now see clearly: the trannies I persecuted would have won me the war.  Trannies = victory!  You keep that in mind while the rest of the world continues to undermine and scheme against you.  Fear not Russia, not China, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, China, Islamic jihadists, or whomever.   Fear nothing, dear America–you’ve now got trannies on your side now.


—Adolf Hitler,
Former Austro–German politician, inconsequential historical figure

The preceding is satire



Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: